alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN MEDIA OPERATIONS, INC. FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-26-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,230
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,191
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,391
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,438
<PP&E>                                          39,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,819
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 670,850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          144,820
<BONDS>                                        469,535
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,455
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   670,850
<SALES>                                        315,988
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               315,988
<CGS>                                          228,817
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  228,817
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,705
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,284
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,182
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,716
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,466
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,466
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Keith E. SOHM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Wendell D. WINEGAR, dba Utah Electric & Motor Co., Defendant and Respondent.

No. 14654.

Supreme Court of Utah.

June 17, 1977.

Keith E. Sohm, pro se.

Roger F. Cutler, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

WILKINS, Justice:

Plaintiff, an attorney at law sued defendant, his client, to recover attorney’s fees, alleging that the parties had an agreement that the plaintiff would be paid a contingency fee of one fourth of the amount recovered on two cases and an hourly fee on a third case. At a trial on the merits, the District Court of Salt Lake County, sitting without a jury, found that there was never a meeting of the minds concerning the contingency contract that the defendant had agreed to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees, and further, that the plaintiffs had already received reasonable attorneys’ fees for his services. Plaintiff appeals.

There is substantial evidence to support the Court’s findings and judgment when viewed in the light most favorable to the *1135prevailing party,1 and the judgment is affirmed. Costs to respondent.

ELLETT, C. J., and CROCKETT, MAU-GHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.

1

. *Cutler v. Bowen,*Utah, 543 P.2d 1349 (1975); *Taylor v. Johnson,*15 Utah 2d 342, 393 P.2d 382 (1964); *Petrie v. General Contracting Company,*17 Utah 2d 408, 413 P.2d 600 (1966).
See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 52. 8( d) ( " W hen deny i ng r el i ef , t he c our t m ay han d do w n an opi ni on b ut 1 i s n o t r e q u i re d to d o s o .") ; T EX . R. A PP . P . 4 7 .4 (d i s ti n g u i s h i n g o p i n i o n s a n d m e m o ra n d u m o p i n i o n s ). 

### NUMBE R 1 3 - 0 8 - 1 1 8 - CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

_______________________________________________________

I N RE : DONAL D WAYNE T HI EL EMA N

_______________________________________________________

O n Pe t i t i on f orW r i t of Manda m us

_______________________________________________________



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B e f o re J u st ic e s Y a ñ e z, R o d r ig u e z , a n d V e la Per Cu riam Mem ora ndum Opinion 1 Rel a to r, D o n a ld W ay ne Thi ele man, fil ed a peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus in the abov e c ause on Janua ry 18, 2008
. How ev er , t he par ty filin g a p e ti ti on for a w ri t of mandamus bears t he burden of prov idi ng the cour t w it h a s uff ic ien t record to est abl is h the peti ti oner's r ig ht t o mandamus reli ef. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.7. The r ule s t hat g ov er n our re vie w o f

re la t o r' s p e t it io n re qu ir e , fo r e xa m p le , t h a tt h e p e t it io n b e a c c o m p a n ie d b y a cer ti fied or swor n c opy of ev er

y document that is mater ial to the rela tor's cl aim for reli ef and that w as filed i n any

under ly ing proceed ing
. See i d. at ru le 52.7( a) (1 ); see als o id. at rule2

52.3( j) ( required c ontent s o f appendi x to peti ti on i ncl ude c erti fied or swor n c opy

of "any o rd e r complai ned of"). R ela tor has not submi tted an appe ndi x or any othe r mater ial cons ti tuti ng a record t o s u p por t hi s p eti ti on. He, therefore, canno t demons trate t hat t he t ri a l c o u rth a s a b u s e d it s d is c re t io n o r vi o la t e d a d u t y im p o s e d b y la w. T he Cou rt, having examine d an d f ully conside red the petitio n for w rit of man dam us, is of th e o p in io n tha t rela tor has not show n hi msel f entit led to the reli ef soug ht. Acc ordin g ly , rela tor's peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus i s d eni ed. See id . at rule 52 .8(a). PER CURI AM D o notpubl i sh. T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 7 .2 (b ). M em or andum O pi ni on del i ver ed and f i l ed t hi s 2 5t h day of

M ar ch, 2008.
#### Lila Turner, Plaintiff, *v.*Sanders Turner, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

June 3, 1958.

*51
      *George W. Hers*for plaintiff.

*Morris H. Halpern*for defendant.

James J. Conroy, J.

This is a motion by the plaintiff for leave to enter a money judgment against the defendant, pursuant to section 1171-b of the Civil Practice Act, for the accrued support payments on behalf of the infant children of the parties from April 19,1957 to May 9,1958, totaling $1,100.

The defendant does not deny that he stopped the aforesaid payments. He contends, however, that this court in the exercise of its discretion should withhold the relief sought by the plaintiff, upon the ground, among others, that for a period of upwards of 20 months plaintiff has remained out of this jurisdiction with the two infant children of the parties (in the State of Florida, where plaintiff has since obtained her divorce), thereby effectively frustrating and depriving the defendant, as well as the children, of visitation rights in accordance with the provisions of the judgment of separation of this court, dated April 19,1956.

Section 1171-b of the Civil Practice Act, pursuant to which plaintiff seeks to docket a money judgment, vests this court with discretion to make an order directing the entry of judgment for the amount of the arrears *“*or for such part thereof as justice requires having regard to the circumstances of the respective parties ”. This court is of the opinion that the foregoing statute permits equitable as well as financial circumstances to be considered in determining the exercise of discretion. The fact that the plaintiff has willfully violated the decree she seeks to enforce by removing her infant children to Florida, and thereby effectively depriving them of the visitation rights which were granted to them and to their father in the selfsame judgment, is an equitable consideration which cannot be ignored by this court when the plaintiff invokes its discretion to obtain affirmative relief by docketing a money judgment for unpaid support.

Accordingly, the motion is denied, without prejudice to the enforcement of future support when the children are returned to this jurisdiction and the defendant enabled to resume his rights of visitation as provided in the judgment of this court. (Cf. *Goldner*v. Goldner, 284 App. Div. 961, affd. 309 N. Y. 675.)

Settle order.
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

               TO THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF

                     THE THEME FACTORY, INC.



          We, the undersigned, David C. Merrell, President, and Todd R.
Ross, Secretary, of The Theme Factory, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
"Corporation"), do hereby certify:
                                I
          Pursuant to Section 78.390 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, the
Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation shall be amended as follows:
          The outstanding common stock of the Corporation shall be reverse
split on a basis of one for 100, subject to resolutions of the Board of
Directors outlined in Article III hereof.
                                II
          The foregoing amendment was adopted by Unanimous Consent of the
Board of Directors pursuant to Section 78.315 of the Nevada Revised Statutes,
and by Consent of Majority Stockholders pursuant to Section 78.320 of the
Nevada Revised Statutes.
                               III
          Pursuant to resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors and the
Majority Stockholders as set forth in Paragraph II above, the 2,244,580
outstanding shares of the Corporation were reverse split on a basis of one for
100, effective on filing with the Secretary of State of Nevada, retaining the
authorized shares at 25,000,000 and the par value at one mill ($0.001) per
share, with appropriate adjustments being made in the additional paid in
capital and stated capital accounts of the Corporation; provided, however,
that no stockholder, on a per stock certificate of record basis, currently
owning 100 or more shares shall be reduced to less than 100 shares as a result
of the reverse split and that no stockholder, on a per stock certificate of
record basis, currently owning less than 100 shares, shall be affected by the
reverse split; such additional shares required to provide the minimum of 100
shares to be issued the Corporation; and provided, further, that all
fractional shares shall be rounded up to the nearest whole share.
                                IV
          The number of shares entitled to vote on the amendment was
2,244,580.
                                V
          The number of shares voted in favor of the amendment was
1,360,000, with none opposing and none abstaining.

                              /s/David C. Merrell
                              David C. Merrell, President


                              /s/Todd R. Ross
                              Todd R. Ross, Secretary


STATE OF UTAH       )
                    )  ss
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )

          On the 8th day of October, 1999, personally appeared before me, a
Notary Public, David C. Merrell and Todd R. Ross, who acknowledged that they
is the President and Secretary, respectively, of The Theme Factory, Inc., and
that they are authorized to and did execute the above instrument.


                              /s/Sheryl A. Ross
                              NOTARY PUBLIC
     (Notary Seal)
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Live Animal Exports (Moving Animals

to Another Country)

Last Modified: 

Print

This page contains information about exporting hatching eggs, germplasm (semen,

embryos, oocytes), and live animals other than pets from the United States to a

foreign country or territory. If you're looking for information about taking a pet to

another country, visit Pet Travel.

Visit Pet Travel

Country Requirements

International Regulations for Animal Exports (IRegs)

IRegs provides exporters with our best understanding of importing countries'

requirements for live animals, including hatching eggs and germplasm. Please select

the country of destination from the drop-down menu below, and then click "View

Requirements."

Live Animal Export Country Requirements

View Requirements

- Select a Country - ▾
If your country is not listed, the requirements for that species are not known.

Exporters who want to ship live animals to a country whose requirements are not

listed should apply for an import permit from the appropriate authority of the

destination country, either directly or via the importer or buyer in the destination

country. The import permit should outline the specific conditions that must be met

to ship. 

More Information

Looking for the latest country requirement updates? See the History of Requirement

Updates for Live Animal Exports.

Want to receive email updates from APHIS about live animal exports? Sign up and

select the "Veterinary Services - IREGS Live Animals Updates (Exports)" topic.

Live Animal Export Resources

Frequently Asked Questions About Live Animal Exports 

Find answers to common questions about exporting live animals.

Find an Accredited Veterinarian 

Use our self-search tool to find an accredited veterinarian in your State.

Veterinary Export Health Certification System (VEHCS) 

USDA-accredited veterinarians can use VEHCS to complete (issue) export health

certificates for live animals and submit them to APHIS, all electronically.

Country Acceptance List for VEHCS 

Learn what countries accept health certificates digitally endorsed (signed) by APHIS.

Live Animal Export Program Handbook 

(PDF, 1 MB)

Learn more about APHIS' regulations for exporting live animals (livestock) from the

United States.
Aquatic Animal Export Resources 

Find additional resources on exporting aquatic animals.

Need Help?

Export Trade Services (by State)

APHIS has animal health officials available nationwide with expertise in export

requirements for animals. Contact your nearest office for questions about endorsing

an export or health certificate for live animals. 

- Select a State - ▾

Loading...

All Contacts
26794

#### Tani v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Affirmed
#### State v. Balberdi-Lopez

23133

08/10/2001

Affirmed in part. Vacated in part and Remanded
<PAGE>   1





                                  EXHIBIT 3(c)

                AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED ARTICLES
                 OF INCORPORATION OF HANOVER FOODS CORPORATION


         RESOLVED, that the following provisions of Article 5 of the Amended
and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Hanover Foods Corporation, under the
heading Series C Convertible Preferred Stock, shall be amended to read in full
as follows, but in all other respects Article 5 shall remain unchanged:

         Change subclause (i)(B), which presently reads:

         (B) at least a majority of the trustees of the trust must be persons
who qualify as "disinterested directors" of the Corporation under Section
1715(e) of the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law of 1988, as amended, in
the opinion of counsel for the Corporation;

to read:

         (B) at least a majority of the trustees of the trust must be persons
who qualify, in the opinion of counsel for the Corporation, as "Disinterested
Directors" of the Corporation, as hereafter defined.

         Change the definition of "Disinterested Directors," which presently
reads:

         The term "Disinterested Directors" refers to directors of the
Corporation who are considered to be "disinterested directors" under Section
1715(e) of the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law of 1988, as amended, in
the opinion of counsel for the Corporation.

to read:

         The term "Disinterested Directors" refers to directors of the
Corporation who are considered, in the opinion of counsel for the Corporation,
to meet any of the following criteria: persons who qualify as "disinterested
directors" as defined in Section 1715(e) of the Pennsylvania Business
Corporation Law of 1988, as amended; persons who are not "interested" directors
as defined in Section 1.23 of The American Law Institute "Principles of
Corporate Governance: Analysis and Recommendations" (1994); or persons who
qualify as members of an Audit Committee pursuant to Section 303.00 of the New
York Stock Exchange's Listed Company Manual.  The opinion of counsel for the
Corporation as to who is a "Disinterested Director," if rendered in good faith
by competent counsel who is not an employee of the Corporation,  shall be
final, binding and conclusive.



                                     -103-
Information on the Uses of the Substance and Potential Consumer Exposure

The substance is 100% used industrially in a closed system. During production of the mineral wool products 

the substance is cured to a three-dimensional polymeric network and does not exist in the final mineral 

wool product. 

The use is contained. During production the substance is consumed and the mineral wool end products do 

not contain the substance.

The general public will not be exposed to the substance as there is no substance left in the final product as 

it is consumed in the production process. 

Information about possible exposure at work place is summarized below.

Working environment during production of the substance: The production process is not fully automated. 

The operator may thus be exposed to the reactant chemicals used during the manual handling. The 

following procedures involve possible exposure to reactants.

This chemical is transferred from the storage tank to the reactor through a pipe, i.e. in a closed system. The 

risk of exposure is considered to be insignificant. 

Personal protection

Safety goggles and nitrile rubber gloves are worn during production. Respiratory protection, multifilter type 

A2B2E2K1 applied with P3 filter must be used in case of spillage.

These chemicals are all solids when dosed to the reactor and small amounts of dust may be released.

To reduce the formation of dust in the working environment, the batch recipes shall be adjusted to fit full 

sacks to avoid the weighing procedure or it shall be done via a powder handling sluice. Dosing to the 

reactor will be done with local exhaust situated at the reactor opening.

Personal protection

Safety goggles and nitrile rubber gloves are worn during production.

During handling and cleaning after possible spills of acid anhydrides, respiratory protection with multifilter 

type A2B2E2K1 apply with P3 filter shall be used. Local exhaust is used when opening the reactor.
Indirect exposure to humans:

To ensure that no persons other than the operators are being exposed, the production will take place in a 

room with closed doors in order to avoid diffuse emission. Unauthorized persons are not allowed 

admittance, until the room has been sufficiently ventilated. 

Technological processes related to the use of the substance:

The substance will be polymerized and consumed during the production of end products and will not exist 

as such in end-use products
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50707 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JESUS REYES-NAVA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-00-CR-425-1-H

- - - - - - - - - - February 15,2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jesus Reyes-Nava appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Reyes argues that his sentence should not have exceeded the two-year maximum sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Reyes acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000).No. 00-50707 - 2 - Reyes’ argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. at 235. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply11783Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Karen Monroe (not verified)PermalinkFebruary 9, 2022 - 10:46amWOW!! Dennis, thank you so much for sharing your story. All the best to you for continued strength.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe